Sarah, thanks for the response -- but I find this puzzling. I don't want to
get into too many details here, as I think the comment thread on the
Signpost op-ed, or the poll on the letter's talk page, are more appropriate
venues for that; but briefly:

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 12:30 PM, SarahSV <> wrote:

> Pete, it does seem that since Lila arrived a lot of the tension between
> the Foundation and community has gone. I've several times heard her talk of
> the need to respect the community because Wikipedia is nothing without it.

I am more interested in discussing actions than words.

> ​You wrote above: "​As I understand it, we are still very much in the
> 'Superprotect disaster' era -- one which began under the same Executive
> Director we have today."
> Superprotect was implemented just after Lila arrived, but it was a decision
> of Erik's.

I'd say "citation needed," but in this case I am highly confident that no
citation exists. We have had no formal statement whatsoever on which to
base speculation. Beyond that, Lila was Erik's boss; and people closer to
the situation than myself have actually (privately) asserted just the
opposite, that Lila was the driving force.

The tensions behind it were very much a product of the pre-Lila
> era, and had been growing for years.

I very much agree with this, yes.

> It appeared that Lila quickly understood that it needed to go.

I do not agree with this. She did acknowledge that the software feature had
been a problem, when she announced its removal. (Keep in mind, its
implementation happened on a Sunday afternoon, and its removal took a year
and a half -- so I'm not sure about "quickly.")

But more importantly, neither she nor the board have acknowledged, much
less moved to address, non-technical aspects of the letter.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Reply via email to